🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <1992Apr12.133451.12877@metapro.DIALix.oz.au>, bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>|> ... I wasn't at the AGM, but I'm
>|> sure that (unless the returning officer has been derelict in
>|> his duties) no vote was taken and therefore you do NOT have
>|> a _mandate_.

In article <1992Apr13.014747.3281@newshost.anu.edu.au> jdb@arp.anu.edu.au (John D. Barlow) writes:
>Perhaps the use of "postal votes" could be made - as an organisation
>becomes bigger (or, face it, any organisation that is spread out over
>Australia) it needs to allow people to participate without physically
>being there.  This of course assumes the matters to be voted on are
>known in advance, and/or of enough importance.

Pat was elected by a postal vote. If financial, Bernd should have been
able to vote. This constitutes a mandate to me...

AUUG does, of course, use postal votes for the election of the
committee, and then the committee makes the decisions that are
translated into the running of the group. This takes a ridiculously
large amount of time (not to mention expense which I'd rather see
being spent on member benefits) and is, in my opinion, not an option for any
decision short of constitutional changes.

>Stand and be counted - put yourself up for a position on the committee,
>and vote for the people you want to be in power.

Indeed. (Don't construe this as a criticism of Bernd, who already
contributes more than most...)

--
Greg Rose                 Australian Computing and Communications Institute
ggr@acci.com.au                                              +61 3 282 2517